IS THIS SERIOUS? – AT 8:35 A.M. ET:  When you're a scientist, and your work is questioned, there are a number of ways to fight back.  Here is one, from Fox News:

Undaunted by a rash of scandals over the science underpinning climate change, top climate researchers are plotting to respond with what one scientist involved said needs to be "an outlandishly aggressively partisan approach" to gut the credibility of skeptics.

In private e-mails obtained by The Washington Times, climate scientists at the National Academy of Sciences say they are tired of "being treated like political pawns" and need to fight back in kind. Their strategy includes forming a nonprofit group to organize researchers and use their donations to challenge critics by running a back-page ad in the New York Times.

"Most of our colleagues don't seem to grasp that we're not in a gentlepersons' debate, we're in a street fight against well-funded, merciless enemies who play by entirely different rules," Paul R. Ehrlich, a Stanford University researcher, said in one of the e-mails.

Wait, wait, wait.  Is that the same Paul Ehrlich...?  Yeah, I looked it up.  It's the same guy who became famous in the late sixties and early seventies – he even did the Tonight Show – for predicting the so-called "population bomb."  He predicted that there would be famines, awful things, terrible stuff, that the world could not feed itself, etc., etc.  His predictions fell well short, and have been largely relegated to the history of scare stories.  Ehrlich also suggested that chemicals that could render people sterile be temporarily added to food and water in some areas.

So now he's involved in global warming?  And he talks about the enemy – those who dare ask questions – as merciless?  Like he showed mercy when he wanted to add those chemicals to food and water? 

Some scientists question the tactic and say they should focus instead on perfecting their science, but the researchers who are organizing the effort say the political battle is eroding confidence in their work.

This second group, who want to perfect their science, is correct.  No one is looking for a political war.  The skeptics are looking for hard science.

If I were a global warmer, why would I not want Paul Ehrlich as my standard bearer?

March 5, 2010